What have we come to

Earthhorse

Fann Linn wrote: »

A nephew of the wife's just after buying a house outside Balbriggan through this scheme. That's why I mentioned it in the first place.

A friend of mine bought a place in Doneycarney under this scheme too. It's absolutely possible to do it in Dublin.

Yurt2

Earthhorse wrote: »

A friend of mine bought a place in Doneycarney under this scheme too. It's absolutely possible to do it in Dublin.

No doubt, but nobody could make of it work in or around the minimum wage in Dublin and in most counties, which is what prompted the chain of responses.

Earthhorse

Yurt! wrote: »

No doubt, but nobody could make of it work in or around the minimum wage in Dublin and in most counties, which is what prompted the chain of responses.

Yes, I'm just after reading back and seeing that. My friend and his partner aren't on minimum wage but I don't think they're on the average wage either and they have a small child too. So it's possible to make it work on a tight budget (I agree, not on minimum wage though).

A part of the problem with the economic analysis on this thread (much of which I agree with) is that it's not looking at the type of jobs being created. A lot of jobs these days are baristas, bicycle couriers etc. There's nothing wrong with doing that for a living but it is minimum wage work and so it's difficult for people to progress economically. In short, it's no good being at full employment without looking at the quality of that employment compared to that of previous generations.

That's a genuine problem that requires addressing and can't just be hand waved away and it's only going to get worse with increased automation in the future.

Geuze

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

So on paper we look great while in reality we have a ridiculous public transport system, a shortage of hospital staff and a recruitment ban and nurses employed cant afford to keep themselves afloat while working 48 hour shifts.

Recruitment ban???!!!!

Employment in h/care is rising year on year.

HSE also overspends its budget.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/publications/corporate/hse-annual-report-and-financial-statements-2018.pdf


In one year, 2017 to 2018, we added 867 nurses.

Brendan Bendar

mfceiling wrote: »

Just interested to know where these hotels are?

Are hotels not usually built by chains/private investors?

Why would any government build their own hotels and actually spend billions doing it?

Mf I have been ‘skimming’ through Airy’s posts and I’ll have to say most of them just reek of innaccuracy, hearsay, generalizations, suppositions, and the usual exchanges that most folk would perhaps describe as ‘pub talk’.


Which is why I don’t bother responding.

Airyfairy12

Earthhorse wrote: »

Yes, I'm just after reading back and seeing that. My friend and his partner aren't on minimum wage but I don't think they're on the average wage either and they have a small child too. So it's possible to make it work on a tight budget (I agree, not on minimum wage though).

A part of the problem with the economic analysis on this thread (much of which I agree with) is that it's not looking at the type of jobs being created. A lot of jobs these days are baristas, bicycle couriers etc. There's nothing wrong with doing that for a living but it is minimum wage work and so it's difficult for people to progress economically. In short, it's no good being at full employment without looking at the quality of that employment compared to that of previous generations.

That's a genuine problem that requires addressing and can't just be hand waved away and it's only going to get worse with increased automation in the future.

Its only doable for couples who have two incomes. If both are earning 35K, thats 70K between them. What are single people supposed to do?
Again, the government is only looking out for people who have money.

Earthhorse

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Its only doable for couples who have two incomes. If both are earning 35K, thats 70K between them. What are single people supposed to do?
Again, the government is only looking out for people who have money.

Not every scheme can address every issue.

Sweet.Science

Earthhorse wrote: »

Not every scheme can address every issue.

They really should increase the amount you can earn to go on the housing list. It should increase from 35k a year to 60k if you are single.
There is a huge amount in the private rental trap forever

What happens when all this people retire and can no longer afford extortionate rent?

Yurt2

Earthhorse wrote: »

Not every scheme can address every issue.

I don't think he's suggesting that, but the ones that saying housing unaffordability can't be solved (I'd disagree on that count) are typically the ones who also baulk at regulation of the rental sector, rental security or rental controls generally. Even the deaf ear gets turned to rather sensible and economically sustainable proposals such as the Vienna affordable rental model.

There will be a lot of people heading into pensions poverty in their old age on this current course. We, as in society generally, are making a very serious rod for our own backs with the 'there is nothing anyone can do' mode.

PommieBast

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Its only doable for couples who have two incomes. If both are earning 35K, thats 70K between them. What are single people supposed to do?
Again, the government is only looking out for people who have money.

More accurately they are looking after those who can hire accountants who know how to bend the rules.

Earthhorse

Sweet.Science wrote: »

They really should increase the amount you can earn to go on the housing list. It should increase from 35k a year to 60k if you are single.

I don't know that I agree. 60k seems like a huge wage to me. I bought my 2 bed apartment in D4 on a 40k wage. A lot of saving and sacrifice was involved in that.

Now I'm to help someone on a good deal more money than I was when I bought, buy a place? This seems crazy to me.

Yurt! wrote: »

I don't think he's suggesting that, but the ones that saying housing unaffordability can't be solved (I'd disagree on that count) are typically the ones who also baulk at regulation of the rental sector, rental security or rental controls generally. Even the deaf ear gets turned to rather sensible and economically sustainable proposals such as the Vienna affordable rental model.

There will be a lot of people heading into pensions poverty in their old age on this current course. We, as in society generally, are making a very serious rod for our own backs with the 'there is nothing anyone can do' mode.

I cannot speak for those people, only for myself. I don't think there is "nothing anyone can do". There are lots of things we can do to relieve these issues. But we cannot expect every single last problem to be addressed or for one scheme to address every problem.

Cupatae

joseywhales wrote: »

Not everyone can or ever will own a home, not matter who is in government.

There is nothing wrong with renting for life.

In fact the more developed the country, the less residential units are owner occupied.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate


I'd also like to point out that the cost of building a house in labour and materials and land would easily be 150k(if you did all the management yourself) or more for a 2 bed detached home. So unless you want builders to be paid less and housing standards to be reduced, that's the price.

The problem is the rent is more than likely more than a mortgage would be, the second problem you are saying it like there will always be a few cases of renting for life but the reality is the majority will be lucky if they can rent for life, the gap between most wages and the cost of living is insane.

If you are lucky enough to scrape by and afford the house car childcare ect that ll be about your lot you wont have much room to even enjoy life.

gormdubhgorm

I found this video where Leo Varadkar was speaking and was repeatedly interrupted by Mary Lou from across the house.

Leo then referenced SF's lack of comprise in NI and resulting collapse etc.

Mary Lou in fit of pique and petulance, disrupted the house

If she is to be Taoiseach she surely has to learn to act with more class and decorum? At least act like at stateswoman?

Ironically the speaker following Mary Lou's antics, was Eamon O'Cuiv. Who constantly acts with decorum and is statesman like. Fantastic Irish as well unlike Leo or Mary Lou.

Also O'Cuiv is a main of compromise and is willing to compromise with SF. It had occurred to me that if O'Cuiv ever becomes leader of FF what will the state of play be? It will almost be like SF and FF have come full circle. Former FF'er Mary Lou and the grandson of of some fella from SF.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

I see FFG both saying no to a coalition with SF on the basis that they have significant policy differences.

The reality is that FFG have significant differences with a vast majority of the Irish electorate which voted for change.

There will be lots of haggling and whispers behind closed doors now as FFG scramble to build a coalition. Neither wants to go back to a 2nd election because they will be massacred, you have TDs from both parties who only got in on the 4th or 5th count, sometimes much more.

FrancieBrady

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I found this video where Leo Varadkar was speaking and was repeatedly interrupted by Mary Lou from across the house.

Leo then referenced SF's lack of comprise in NI and resulting collapse etc.

Mary Lou in fit of pique and petulance, disrupted the house

If she is to be Taoiseach she surely has to learn to act with more class and decorum? At least act like at stateswoman?

Ironically the speaker following Mary Lou's antics, was Eamon O'Cuiv. Who constantly acts with decorum and is statesman like. Fantastic Irish as well unlike Leo or Mary Lou.

Also O'Cuiv is a main of compromise and is willing to compromise with SF. It had occurred to me that if O'Cuiv ever becomes leader of FF what will the state of play be? It will almost be like SF and FF have come full circle. Former FF'er Mary Lou and the grandson of of some fella from SF.

..and it continues.

How many times have you heard the antics in the Dáil being compared to that of children?

Cupatae

Steyr 556 wrote: »

I see FFG both saying no to a coalition with SF on the basis that they have significant policy differences.

The reality is that FFG have significant differences with a vast majority of the Irish electorate which voted for change.

There will be lots of haggling and whispers behind closed doors now as FFG scramble to build a coalition. Neither wants to go back to a 2nd election because they will be massacred, you have TDs from both parties who only got in on the 4th or 5th count, sometimes much more.

i dunno i think you underestimate the effect some of the antics and carry on of some SF candidates will have on the electorate , that and in the wake of the election alot of there manifesto has been scrutinized, I think if they do get power it could be a case of a poisoned chalice if they dont deliver spectacularly.. either way this is there shot for power, and they need it to be a good one or they ll get buried.

Cupatae

FrancieBrady wrote: »

..and it continues.

How many times have you heard the antics in the Dáil being compared to that of children?

Or this classic.:D

gormdubhgorm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

..and it continues.

How many times have you heard the antics in the Dáil being compared to that of children?

Did she look like a future leader of the country, with them sort of antics?
Plus Mary Lou is supposed to be the D6 Rathgar woman if this is the example she sets. What will Dessie Ellis, O'Snodaigh, David Culliane etc, all do? The yahoo element of SF.
What will they think they can shout across the chamber?

Will O'Snodnaigh make a racist reference to Leo, like the Goebbels one he made to to Alan Shatter (which he never apologised for)
The Sewer beneath SF will overflow?

It is grand having polished lads like Pearse O'Doherty and O'Brion but I feel they will be let down by the yahoo element - up the ra etc.
SF seem to have a high yahoo quotient still - but they are gradually replacing them in fairness.

blanch152

Steyr 556 wrote: »

I see FFG both saying no to a coalition with SF on the basis that they have significant policy differences.

The reality is that FFG have significant differences with a vast majority of the Irish electorate which voted for change.

There will be lots of haggling and whispers behind closed doors now as FFG scramble to build a coalition. Neither wants to go back to a 2nd election because they will be massacred, you have TDs from both parties who only got in on the 4th or 5th count, sometimes much more.

Did you think about that before you posted it?

If the vast majority of the Irish electorate voted for change, then there is a majority of TDs in the Dail who are in favour of change and will vote Mary-Lou into the Taoiseach's chair.

The 10% of people who switched votes to Sinn Fein in the election just gone are not by any definition "the vast majority of the Irish electorate".

What we are seeing right now is the complete failure of Mary-Lou to persuade anyone from any other party to support her for Taoiseach. I haven't seen Eamon Ryan or Roisin Shortall come along and say that they want Mary-Lou for Taoiseach.

Tony EH

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

“And nobody is talking about quick fixes either. Certainly not the Shinners anyway, who've said that fixing the problems caused by the lackadaisical approaches by FFG will take a long time to repair. Nobody is under any illusion that these issues are going to get done overnight. I haven't heard anyone that I've talked to say that they believe that it's all going to be tickety boo in a few years.

But they know FFG aren't interested in even trying.“


How do they know that, pity people like you can’t stop yourselves from tossing out stuff like that.

You could say they are not doing enough, not taking the right options, anything under the sun.

But tossing out rubbish like they are “ people knowing they are not interested” with no back up points you out for what you are.

Are you still living in Australia Brendan.

Maybe you're still out of touch with what's going on over here in Ireland.

gormdubhgorm

blanch152 wrote: »

What we are seeing right now is the complete failure of Mary-Lou to persuade anyone from any other party to support her for Taoiseach. I haven't seen Eamon Ryan or Roisin Shortall come along and say that they want Mary-Lou for Taoiseach.

This is the problem with SF they are not clean at all, if you do even the most basic digging. Even parking the para-militarism and fallout, there are the Holohan, Ellis, and Cullinane stuff most recently. There are thier pro-austerity polices in NI. There is also SF's part in the collapse of WM for three years.

To use the youngsters favourite word on the net SF are still 'toxic' culture, to many parties. They have to think VERY long about making any deal with them as a result.

Tony EH

jmayo wrote: »

Endless growth is what the capitalist western world is based on.

There's no such thing as endless growth.

jmayo wrote: »

FFS we don't have a merry go round of boom and bust.

That's what we have these days and people are sick of it. The bust times are too difficult to ride out if you don't have a substantial cushion of wealth.

JC01

Steyr 556 wrote: »

I see FFG both saying no to a coalition with SF on the basis that they have significant policy differences.

The reality is that FFG have significant differences with a vast majority of the Irish electorate which voted for change.

There will be lots of haggling and whispers behind closed doors now as FFG scramble to build a coalition. Neither wants to go back to a 2nd election because they will be massacred, you have TDs from both parties who only got in on the 4th or 5th count, sometimes much more.

If your a strategist in FF/FG right now I’d imagine a second election is very much the ideal outcome, let SF run more candidates, win a landslide, form a powerful SF government with no excuses not to deliver on promises. Spend the subsequent 4 or 5 years in the easy job (opposition) and watch the country fall down around us.

Decimate SF in the following elections once people have seen that populism and empty rhetoric is well and good until you need to actually run a country,

The alternative, FF/FG cobbling together a coalition and continuing to run the country without SF only guarantees SF win the next election. Everybody can see SF will get a crack at government, the massive wave of people wanting this mystical “change” we hear so much about dictates it, once they see the reality of the situation middle class support will collapse and they will return to being the party of the (not) working class, but this will only happen once they get into power, preferably without the ready made excuses that a minority position provides.

Cupatae

JC01 wrote: »

If your a strategist in FF/FG right now I’d imagine a second election is very much the ideal outcome, let SF run more candidates, win a landslide, form a powerful SF government with no excuses not to deliver on promises. Spend the subsequent 4 or 5 years in the easy job (opposition) and watch the country fall down around us.

Decimate SF in the following elections once people have seen that populism and empty rhetoric is well and good until you need to actually run a country,

The alternative, FF/FG cobbling together a coalition and continuing to run the country without SF only guarantees SF win the next election. Everybody can see SF will get a crack at government, the massive wave of people wanting this mystical “change” we hear so much about dictates it, once they see the reality of the situation middle class support will collapse and they will return to being the party of the (not) working class, but this will only happen once they get into power, preferably without the ready made excuses that a minority position provides.

Yeah i agree, the win in this case is more dangerous to SF than anything else, they have drummed up the hype, now its time to deliver anything less wont be good enough.

Idbatterim

Cupatae wrote: »

Yeah i agree, the win in this case is more dangerous to SF than anything else, they have drummed up the hype, now its time to deliver anything less wont be good enough.

nobody expects them to turn around things overnight! but FFG have done nothing, its not going to take much , to outperform decades of doing nothing!

Tony EH

Cupatae wrote: »

Yeah i agree, the win in this case is more dangerous to SF than anything else, they have drummed up the hype, now its time to deliver anything less wont be good enough.

A lot of folk think we're looking at a new downturn in the very near future. It could be the worst time to be going into government right now, cos if and when a new bust does happen, those in power will be crucified for it.

Foxtrol

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I often use this analogy to explain why young lefties don't view political stability as a positive thing - the two halves of the Titanic are extremely stable at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, they've barely moved in the last hundred years and they're highly unlikely to move any time soon barring some kind of cataclysmic earthquake or eruption in their vicinity. Stability is exactly what you don't want if you regard the political system as fundamentally f*cking you over, in that context stability means it will continue to do so indefinitely. Most of us want fundamental changes to our economic system because right now it is badly hurting us and ruining our lives from several different angles simultaneously. Stability means this doesn't change, so as far as many in this generation are concerned, screw stability. It's the opposite of what we want.

That is basically the point I was making. The voters who went for SF weren't voting for stability they wanted radical change, which has its risks for many

jmayo

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Its not just Dublin though, it's everywhere. Unless people are coupled up and both earning over 40,000 or have parents able to fund them, they will not stand a chance of owning a house, whether that be in Dublin or Mullingar.
The homeless crisis is all over Ireland, not just Dublin and the amount of houses and apartments isnt the only issue, its the cost of them that causing the biggest problems.
There is a block of apartments built in the last 5 years in my small town where a chunk of them are vacant because the rent on them is so high. Theyre not even that nice, they were thrown up, theyre tiny inside and most only have one or two tiny bedrooms with a connected kitchen/living area and are priced at 1500 a month. Who has that kind of money in a small town where there are no jobs?

Must be very flush owners if they can afford to sit on a non returning investment.
BTW some people need to realise they will never be able to buy a house or indeed a home.
That is what council housing was for in the past.
And yes the last government and quite a few before that stopped considering this cohort of people and started adopting almost thatcherite economics about letting private sector cater for those people.

We need a sh** load of council housing.

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

The government can afford to spend billions building hotels and the most expensive hospital in Europe - all the while they have a recruitment ban on hospital staff during a health care crisis and they cant pay nurses a livable wage.

Where are these hotels the government are building ?
And where exactly is the recruitment ban again ?

Tony EH wrote: »

There's no such thing as endless growth.

Yes we know there isn't endless growth, but capitalism is based on trying to achieve it.
Consumerism is based on it.
The ever increasing market.

Tony EH wrote: »

That's what we have these days and people are sick of it. The bust times are too difficult to ride out if you don't have a substantial cushion of wealth.

No we don't have booms and bust, we have cycles of growth and then downturns.
Every now and then economies (now worldwide) do get a boom and then subsequently a bust.

For most of Ireland's existence it was a fecking depression (a continous downturn) and that is why we had absolutely massive emigration.
Things perked up a bit in mid to late 70s and then went downhill in the 80s.

In our history we have really had only one big boom, i.e. construction/retail cheap credit bubble.
And then followed the almighty bust.

Remember the argument about how we were different. :rolleyes:

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

That is basically the point I was making. The voters who went for SF weren't voting for stability they wanted radical change, which has its risks for many

I think you're missing the points others are making though. Voters want a change in how government conducts its business, sure. But they want those changes put in place that enables them to have stable futures.

Which is the current state of affairs isn't happening.

There may be risk involved. But at present, far too many people have no hope for stability in their lives.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

But, you don't know this.

What don't I know? I know that the SF plans weren't costed for the wider economic impact of their aggressive policy changes and their leader claimed that demographics will 'look after themselves'. The level of increases in spending would clearly put Ireland in danger when the next downturn happened.

If that isn't gambling I don't know what is.

What we do know, however, is that the current cartel is screwing things up for the vast majority of people on the island and they are desirous of a change that can possibly make things better re: their futures. They've had enough of the folly that has been the malaise this country has seen since the 90's and their done with that and I don't blame them one bit.

So you're agreeing with my original point that it wasn't a vote for stability?

And nobody is talking about quick fixes either. Certainly not the Shinners anyway, who've said that fixing the problems caused by the lackadaisical approaches by FFG will take a long time to repair. Nobody is under any illusion that these issues are going to get done overnight. I haven't heard anyone that I've talked to say that they believe that it's all going to be tickety boo in a few years.

But they know FFG aren't interested in even trying.

What manifesto were you reading to think they weren't offering quick fixes?

What you call lackadaisical is spending the money that is there, the SF manifesto magics up double the amount that is expected to be available. USC gone for many, property tax gone for all, retirement age back to 65, 66% more houses than FG's already aggressive manifesto plan.

If doing all that in one term isn't claiming a quick fix I dont know what is.